Obama up 8 points

[-Jrabbit]

Saw McCain on Letterman last night, basically the only guest (with a musician at the end). Dave wasn't as gentle as I feared he might be, although he let McC wriggle off the hook several times. Some semi-tough, pertinent questions, but not much follow-up. Several of McCain's responses were virtually word-for-word out of his debate text, notably the stupidly baseless suggestion that, had Obama done a series of town hall meetings, his campaign would not have turned so negative. When Letterman pressed him a little, he said "There are millions of words said in a campaign like this. Can't we move on?"

Funniest bit: They had Keith Olbermann literally waiting in the wings, standing next to Biff Henderson. The walk-on music was "I Can't Explain" by The Who -- nice touch by Shaffer. McCain's best line: Saying that no one's taxes should be raised - except for Dave's, promising that doing so would be his first executive order. Most unintentionally condescending remark: repeatedly stating "I'm so proud of her" in reference to Palin.

It showed how much more comfortable McCain is in a conversational setting. He was mostly charming, though still a bit grumpy and bitter in spots.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Saw McCain on Letterman last night, basically the only guest (with a musician at the end). Dave wasn't as gentle as I feared he might be, although he let McC wriggle off the hook several times.

You do know he's not a journalist, right?

[-Jrabbit]

You do realize that McCain snubbed the show with a faux cancellation and Letterman has been dissing him for weeks, right?

[DinoDoc]

What's your point? If you had wanted a hard hitting interview with a political figure, might I suggest you watch another show?

[Boris Godunov]

Apparently Palin is happiest when she's in those parts of America that are pro-America:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/17/to_avoid_being_depressed_palin.html

Palin also made a point of mentioning that she loved to visit the "pro-America" areas of the country, of which North Carolina is one. No word on which states she views as unpatriotic.

I'd be curious to learn which states are not pro-America, too. I mean, I'd think a state that at one time seceded from America might not be the most pro-America place one could find...

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
..., I'd think a state that at one time seceded from America might not be the most pro-America place one could find...

Didn't her husband join a political party which advocated suscedin' from this great nation of ours?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, it's not as if she said "pro-United States of America". After all, they were called the Confederate States of America.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Apparently Palin is happiest when she's in those parts of America that are pro-America:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/17/to_avoid_being_depressed_palin.html

I'd be curious to learn which states are not pro-America, too. I mean, I'd think a state that at one time seceded from America might not be the most pro-America place one could find...

For a person with secessionist links, she's awfullly in favor of the Union now.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well, it's not as if she said "pro-United States of America". After all, they were called the Confederate States of America.

They did sort of want the choice to abort the experiment that was the US.

[OzzyKP]

Re: Reverse Bradley Effect?

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Interesting article posted on a Newsweek blog yesterday...

While I didn't read the whole article (just the bolded parts) it seems the article is right about the effect and wrong about the cause. If Obama was winning by larger margins than the polls it wasn't because people were dishonest about wanting to vote for a black man it is because of a mistake in the poll.

Polls depend on estimates of likely voters based on past elections. If white evangelicals typically have 80% turnout then pollsters will count up the white evangelical population and discount their presence in the poll by their turnout percentage.

This is typically a good strategy but it causes issues when you have large departures from past voting habits. This election there has been a surge in registration and participation by blacks and youth. Both groups will break for Obama. But these groups have poor turnout in the past and thus are underrepresented in polls.

I think this accounted for the boost Obama got in the primaries that was unaccounted for in the polls. It stands to reason that it'll happen again in November.

[Arrian]

I'd be curious to learn which states are not pro-America, too

Oh you know. All the solidly blue states, of course. It's not as if this isn't a common right-wing view of things.

Librultraitors!!1111!!!

This time, they'll lose. The deck is totally stacked against them in this cycle, and the Dems have managed to avoid implosion. But this viewpoint is 'ole reliable. It will be back.

-Arrian

[Dinner]

It is 'ole reliable. They've been using that same offensive smear since the 1980. You can thank their man-god Reagan for that one.

[Boris Godunov]

And today the Chicago Tribune endorsed Barrack Obama for President.

People might think this isn't a shock since it's his home town, but the Tribune is a staunchly conservative paper. They have never in their entire 161-year history endorsed a Democrat for President.

And the endorsement is by no means tepid. It is, in fact, a full-throated one. Impressive

[Boris Godunov]

So if I were McCain at this point, I'd pull everything out of the Midwest battlegrounds except Ohio and Indiana. That means abandon Minnesota and Iowa (he should have abandoned Iowa a loooong time ago anyway). Abandon New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, too.

Pour everything into protecting: Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina and Missouri. He has to hold every single one of those states to win. I think his only hope at this point is an Electoral College squeaker where he loses the popular vote by a significant margin, thanks to Obama racking up the votes in his safe states. The problem is Obama will be able to outspend him by massive margins no matter what, since he's swimming in cash. Could McCain convince the RNC to go all-in on these battlegrounds and neglect their Senate and House races? Very unlikely, but that would be the only way he could hope to get close to parity with Obama.

If Obama picks off just one of those states, he wins. McCain has to run the table on 8 battleground states, which would be an unprecedented feat for a candidate who is behind nationally. The RNC is probably going to to abandon McCain soon and circle the wagons around their endangered Senate candidates like Chambliss, Coleman, Stevens, Wicker and McConnell to prevent the dreaded fillibuster-proof Democratic Senate. They've already given up on Gilmore (VA), Pearce (NM) and Schaffer (CO), and they'd better give up on Smith (OR), Dole (NC) and Sununu (NH), as they're all going to lose.

All eyes should be on Virginia when election night starts.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And today the Chicago Tribune endorsed Barrack Obama for President.

People might think this isn't a shock since it's his home town, but the Tribune is a staunchly conservative paper. They have never in their entire 161-year history endorsed a Democrat for President.

And the endorsement is by no means tepid. It is, in fact, a full-throated one. Impressive

The LA Times and the Washington Post have also endorsed Obama.